[awm]

There was some commentary about 2/1 GF in the book on Revision Club. After a lot of study from various hands played in world class competition, the conclusion was that there were very few hands where it made a difference how the 2/1 structure worked. Once we filter out the competitive auctions (very high percentage), the auctions where a minor suit or 1NT is opened (more of these than major suit openings especially in 5cM system), the auctions where responder has a raise of opener's suit (actually pretty frequent opposite 5cM), and the auctions where reaching the best contract is just so trivial that any good pair playing a half-decent set of methods can't screw it up... there just wasn't all that much left.

One of the big advantages of 2/1 is that it's simpler than standard american. You don't need nearly as much discussion to determine which auctions are forcing, or to make out a playable (if hardly superior) convention card. This may seem counterintuitive in the US where "2/1" is taught as an "expert system" and most people learn "standard" first and then "graduate" from it -- but standard as played by beginners is not really a playable system at all. For this reason, 2/1 is the obvious system of choice for expert pickup partnerships, for experts playing with students, and so forth. The fact that most expert players have spent a lot of time playing in these situations (heck, even the most established expert partnership was an "expert pickup partnership" the first session they played) makes 2/1 an obvious favorite regardless of its relative merits.

In fact I seem to recall that Eddie Kantar and partner (using "standard" with a lot of agreements) trounced the expert field in a bidding competition back in the early days of 2/1 (like the late 1970s). Yet this did very little to slow 2/1 GF's surging popularity.

[fred]

Cascade, on Jun 4 2009, 10:03 PM, said:

The result was that those who were incorrect in counting the 'f's were actually more confident that they were correct than those who in fact were correct.  He apparently had done some research and this was a common phenomonen.

Not a very good analogy.

You are comparing a group of people who have 30 seconds of lifetime f-counting experience with a gruop of people who have typically spent decades studying and playing bridge and who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are very good at it (at least compared to everyone else).

Some opinions should be taken more seriously than others.

Quote

I would be very surprised if anyone really knew that 2/1 was better (or worse) than a standard approach.

Agree. For that matter, despite what Descartes claims, we don't even really know that we exist.

If you want to go through life and bridge thinking that nobody really knows anything, be my guest. FWIW I have found it to be very helpful to pay attention to the strong opinions of bridge players who know more than I do.

Of course there is no guarantee they are right since nobody really knows anything, but obviously such people tend to be right on bridge-related matters far more often than average or even average expert players. When large groups of such people come close to reaching a consensus in a given area, IMO you would have to either be very stubborn, very foolish, or a visionary genius to reject such a consensus.

Keep in mind that many of these people have a lot of experience playing both 2/1 and non-2/1. Sure they work on their partnerships now that they play 2/1, but they did the same thing when the played non-2/1. These people are therefore in a position to offer an intelligent opinion as to the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1.

They may not *know*, but they certainly know better than the rest of us.

Quote

There are certainly some players (even very good ones) that are adament that 2/1 is not the best way to play bridge.

For sure. And, if you count only "very good ones", there are certainly many more who claim the opposite. That is my point.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

I have argued similar things in the past comparing standard methods with relays.

With relay in our non-competitive slam bidding we had basically one agreement - relay. In my non-relay partnership we have literally 100s of agreements. Ok yes relay actually has lots of different agreements but nevertheless there are far more in non-relay systems.

2/1 GF establishing a force early is in a way a hybrid between a standard system and a relay system that also reduces the number of agreements (specific situations to discuss) required and makes the overall structure simpler to play - especially in pick-up partnerships.

2/1 GF auctions are relatively infrequent auctions. A couple of years ago I played a couple of tournaments using 2/1 GF. We went something like six sessions before actually have a 2/1 auction.

[whereagles]

Cascade, on Jun 4 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

2/1 GF establishing a force early is in a way a hybrid between a standard system and a relay system that also reduces the number of agreements (specific situations to discuss) required and makes the overall structure simpler to play - especially in pick-up partnerships.

Don't agree. To work well, 2/1 GF requires a lot more work and agreements, perhaps even more than a 2/1 F1 only. Of course, if the hands are all just game hands, you're much better off with 2/1. But when stuff is in the slam zone, you really have to go beyond stage 1.

This being said, it seems obvious to me that for serious partnerships the only disavantage of 2/1 is the overload it provokes on the 1NT response.

[helene_t]

Of course 2/1 GF makes it easier to determine which bids are forcing, but sometimes it is complicated to sort out partner's strength, and the catch-all 2M rebid makes it difficult to sort out opener's shape.

Yesterday we had this auction:
1♠-2♣
2♠-3♠
4♣-4NT
5♣-6♠

Opener (p) has a 5323 16-count which he didn't want to open 1NT because of the good spade suit (headed by AKQ I think), I had a 3343 15-count. We landed on our feet but I have questions about most of the bids:
2♣: I am not sure if there is an "expert standard" for 3343.
2♠: I expected six spades here, maybe a balanced or black twosuiter 12-14 (most people include those in the 2♠ rebid) but not a balanced 16.
3♠: Could this be on a doubleton? If so, now 3NT from opener could be an offer to play, but since both hands are unlimited it would also be nice to have 3NT as (non)serious.
4♣: I took this as a cue but I wondered if it shouldn't be natural, assuming that a opener would rebid 2♠ with a minimum hand with 5-5 blacks?
4NT: So which suit is trump here? If we play 6-king blackwood, does it apply here? If the 4♣ cue could be based on shortness it shouldn't, and even if he has Kx or AK, ♣K my not be an essential card.
5♣: I assumed he would have signed off in 4♠ with zero so this must be 3! However, since with extras and ♠AKQ he would not have bid 2♠ (I thought) I gave up on 7.
6♠: Dunno why I didn't bid 6NT since I had AQ in both red suits. Maybe I would if I had been more confident about the auction.

I know a more established partnership would not have these problems (at least not all of them), and also it would have helped if I had more general knowledge of 2/1. My point is just that it is not always a particularly easy system to use.

[whereagles]

helene, in my agreements, your auction would mean:

2♠ = catch all with min hands. Could be 5 cards if 5332 12-14 or 5-4 with 4 clubs.
3♠ = normal 3 card raise, not suitable for picture bid (pic bid is 4♠ now).
4♣= cue, slam interest despite the min hand (3NT would be frivolous, 4♠ would show bad min with bad controls).
4NT = now a clear RKCB for spades.
5♣ = 99,9% probability of 3 keys.
6♠ = one key is missing. With all keys we'd bid either 5NT asking for general extra values or 6x asking for a help in suit x.

What's more, pard would actually understand the bids the same way as I do. We're no-where near pros, so I'd say

YES, WE CAN

[kenrexford]

See! That's what I've been saying all along. 2/1 GF is simple bridge. No need for fancy nonsense. It's all fairly natural.

[mtvesuvius]

kenrexford, on Jun 5 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

See! That's what I've been saying all along. 2/1 GF is simple bridge. No need for fancy nonsense. It's all fairly natural.

LOL

[jdonn]

Helene, I think you are a little paranoid with your doubts about the bids 4♣ and higher. And what you say about 2♣ is probably true but generally irrelevant, especially in this case. Really all you are saying is you didn't know if the 2♠ rebid promised 5 or 6. It's true, that is certainly something worth agreeing! Especially when it goes 1♠ 2♣ 2♠, since this is the only 2/1 auction where the possibility of a singleton in responder's suit and four card suit you could only show by reversing doesn't exist.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on Jun 5 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

But when stuff is in the slam zone, you really have to go beyond stage 1.

I think this is true for all standard systems.

Sometimes in 2/1 you have the advantage of easily knowing that a force has been established and then consequently you save bidding space for exploration and or a round of bidding (4th suit forcing etc) establishing a force.

[whereagles]

The point is that establishing a force matters little unless the players are able to limit at least one hand in terms of strength. Otherwise you'll be in a constant nervous wreck trying to guess which level to play

[OleBerg]

What I play:

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - ?

3♥ = 6+
3♠ = Fourth suit forcing.
3NT = Natural.
4♣ = 3 spades, better than a 4♠ bid.

Not one of my own idées, so it could have some merit.

[Cascade]

OleBerg, on Jun 9 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

What I play:

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - ?

3♥ = 6+
3♠ = Fourth suit forcing.
3NT = Natural.
4♣ = 3 spades, better than a 4♠ bid.

Not one of my own idées, so it could have some merit.

I like it.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Jun 8 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

What I play:

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - ?

3♥ = 6+
3♠ = Fourth suit forcing.
3NT = Natural.
4♣ = 3 spades, better than a 4♠ bid.

Not one of my own idées, so it could have some merit.

I think it's inferior. You are hurting your ability to support spades both when you are minimum and when you have extras. And your gain is to have something to bid when specifially 2533 or perhaps 2524 with no club stopper? That's too small a target for such a big loss in supporting partner if you ask me.

[helene_t]

Josh, you seem to imply that with 4-card ♦ support you would never want to play 3NT?

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jun 8 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Josh, you seem to imply that with 4-card ♦ support you would never want to play 3NT?

It seems unlikely if I couldn't bid it myself, especially if it can't be distinguished from those other shapes at the decision point. But even if you toss in a few of those it doesn't change my mind.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jun 5 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

Of course 2/1 GF makes it easier to determine which bids are forcing, but sometimes it is complicated to sort out partner's strength, and the catch-all 2M rebid makes it difficult to sort out opener's shape.

Yesterday we had this auction:
1♠-2♣
2♠-3♠
4♣-4NT
5♣-6♠

Opener (p) has a 5323 16-count which he didn't want to open 1NT because of the good spade suit (headed by AKQ I think), I had a 3343 15-count. We landed on our feet but I have questions about most of the bids:
2♣: I am not sure if there is an "expert standard" for 3343.
2♠: I expected six spades here, maybe a balanced or black twosuiter 12-14 (most people include those in the 2♠ rebid) but not a balanced 16.
3♠: Could this be on a doubleton? If so, now 3NT from opener could be an offer to play, but since both hands are unlimited it would also be nice to have 3NT as (non)serious.
4♣: I took this as a cue but I wondered if it shouldn't be natural, assuming that a opener would rebid 2♠ with a minimum hand with 5-5 blacks?
4NT: So which suit is trump here? If we play 6-king blackwood, does it apply here? If the 4♣ cue could be based on shortness it shouldn't, and even if he has Kx or AK, ♣K my not be an essential card.
5♣: I assumed he would have signed off in 4♠ with zero so this must be 3! However, since with extras and ♠AKQ he would not have bid 2♠ (I thought) I gave up on 7.
6♠: Dunno why I didn't bid 6NT since I had AQ in both red suits. Maybe I would if I had been more confident about the auction.

I know a more established partnership would not have these problems (at least not all of them), and also it would have helped if I had more general knowledge of 2/1. My point is just that it is not always a particularly easy system to use.

I agree that playing rebids of 2major as a catchall does seem to make life more difficult. OTOH this seems to be what the vast majority play.


I found life simplier with 2s=6 spades and now 3s=slam try in spades.
That means new suit second bids do not promise extras which I just do not find an issue. I assume responder will almost always be the stronger hand(14+) and opener has some 11-13 minimum.

Granted those were not the conditions in the OP and I was a 4d bidder in the OP.

[the hog]

mike777, on Jun 9 2009, 06:45 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 5 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

Of course 2/1 GF makes it easier to determine which bids are forcing, but sometimes it is complicated to sort out partner's strength, and the catch-all 2M rebid makes it difficult to sort out opener's shape.

Yesterday we had this auction:
1♠-2♣
2♠-3♠
4♣-4NT
5♣-6♠

Opener (p) has a 5323 16-count which he didn't want to open 1NT because of the good spade suit (headed by AKQ I think), I had a 3343 15-count. We landed on our feet but I have questions about most of the bids:
2♣: I am not sure if there is an "expert standard" for 3343.
2♠: I expected six spades here, maybe a balanced or black twosuiter 12-14 (most people include those in the 2♠ rebid) but not a balanced 16.
3♠: Could this be on a doubleton? If so, now 3NT from opener could be an offer to play, but since both hands are unlimited it would also be nice to have 3NT as (non)serious.
4♣: I took this as a cue but I wondered if it shouldn't be natural, assuming that a opener would rebid 2♠ with a minimum hand with 5-5 blacks?
4NT: So which suit is trump here? If we play 6-king blackwood, does it apply here? If the 4♣ cue could be based on shortness it shouldn't, and even if he has Kx or AK, ♣K my not be an essential card.
5♣: I assumed he would have signed off in 4♠ with zero so this must be 3! However, since with extras and ♠AKQ he would not have bid 2♠ (I thought) I gave up on 7.
6♠: Dunno why I didn't bid 6NT since I had AQ in both red suits. Maybe I would if I had been more confident about the auction.

I know a more established partnership would not have these problems (at least not all of them), and also it would have helped if I had more general knowledge of 2/1. My point is just that it is not always a particularly easy system to use.

I agree that playing rebids of 2major as a catchall does seem to make life more difficult. OTOH this seems to be what the vast majority play.


I found life simplier with 2s=6 spades and now 3s=slam try in spades.
That means new suit second bids do not promise extras which I just do not find an issue. I assume responder will almost always be the stronger hand(14+) and opener has some 11-13 minimum.

Granted those were not the conditions in the OP and I was a 4d bidder in the OP.

Mike, I disagree strongly with your contention that an omnibus Major rebid makes life difficult. The problem Helene alluded to was brought abouth wholly and solely by her partner's failure to open 1NT on a 1NT hand - a 5332 16 count!

I have played the omnibus rebid whenever I played 2/1 or a variant and have not had any problems. On the other hand, when you play with someone who bids in the following manner:
1H 2C 2S, where 2S shows shape, but no extra values, then you have problems. The only way to sort out relative strengths, (for most players), is to take a trip down hesitation road.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Jun 8 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 9 2009, 06:45 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 5 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

Of course 2/1 GF makes it easier to determine which bids are forcing, but sometimes it is complicated to sort out partner's strength, and the catch-all 2M rebid makes it difficult to sort out opener's shape.

Yesterday we had this auction:
1♠-2♣
2♠-3♠
4♣-4NT
5♣-6♠

Opener (p) has a 5323 16-count which he didn't want to open 1NT because of the good spade suit (headed by AKQ I think), I had a 3343 15-count. We landed on our feet but I have questions about most of the bids:
2♣: I am not sure if there is an "expert standard" for 3343.
2♠: I expected six spades here, maybe a balanced or black twosuiter 12-14 (most people include those in the 2♠ rebid) but not a balanced 16.
3♠: Could this be on a doubleton? If so, now 3NT from opener could be an offer to play, but since both hands are unlimited it would also be nice to have 3NT as (non)serious.
4♣: I took this as a cue but I wondered if it shouldn't be natural, assuming that a opener would rebid 2♠ with a minimum hand with 5-5 blacks?
4NT: So which suit is trump here? If we play 6-king blackwood, does it apply here? If the 4♣ cue could be based on shortness it shouldn't, and even if he has Kx or AK, ♣K my not be an essential card.
5♣: I assumed he would have signed off in 4♠ with zero so this must be 3! However, since with extras and ♠AKQ he would not have bid 2♠ (I thought) I gave up on 7.
6♠: Dunno why I didn't bid 6NT since I had AQ in both red suits. Maybe I would if I had been more confident about the auction.

I know a more established partnership would not have these problems (at least not all of them), and also it would have helped if I had more general knowledge of 2/1. My point is just that it is not always a particularly easy system to use.

I agree that playing rebids of 2major as a catchall does seem to make life more difficult. OTOH this seems to be what the vast majority play.


I found life simplier with 2s=6 spades and now 3s=slam try in spades.
That means new suit second bids do not promise extras which I just do not find an issue. I assume responder will almost always be the stronger hand(14+) and opener has some 11-13 minimum.

Granted those were not the conditions in the OP and I was a 4d bidder in the OP.

Mike, I disagree strongly with your contention that an omnibus Major rebid makes life difficult. The problem Helene alluded to was brought abouth wholly and solely by her partner's failure to open 1NT on a 1NT hand - a 5332 16 count!

I have played the omnibus rebid whenever I played 2/1 or a variant and have not had any problems. On the other hand, when you play with someone who bids in the following manner:
1H 2C 2S, where 2S shows shape, but no extra values, then you have problems. The only way to sort out relative strengths, (for most players), is to take a trip down hesitation road.

Fair enough and as I posted that is the style most play.

I just seem to have more issues with 1s=2c=2s being an omnibus major compared with 1h=2c=2s....again I just assume natural and opener has 11-13 and bid on.
So:
3h=slam try in h
3s=slam try in s
3c=natural, game force and 6c.
3d=4sf may or maynot have real d
2nt=natural and game forcing.

Of course with the given OP hand I am stuck bidding 1nt over 1s.
With most 5332 16 count hands I would open 1 major also but given OP conditions I would strain to open 1nt if I had no small xx.

[hanp]

omnibus

1 : a usually automotive public vehicle designed to carry a large number of passengers : bus
2 : a book containing reprints of a number of works